JUDGMENT Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. This revision application arises out of a suit which had been filed in the year 1964. The relief’s in the plaint have been set out in the revision application and one of them is in regard to the right of the plaintiff to the compensation amount payable by the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, (Act 1 of 1951), where under the zamindari interest in a large number of villages and vested in the State. 2. The suit remained un-disposed of for thirteen years and on 12.3.1977 the defendants filed an application under sections 4(b) and 4(c) of the Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, (herein-after referred to as the Act), praying for dismissal of the suit as having abated, without considering the nature of the case the court, by a perfunctory order, held that the suit had abated. No attempt to give any reason in support of the order was made. Immediately thereafter the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application, a copy whereof is Annexure 2' to the revision petition in which the stated that a copy of the defendants application was served on her counsel at 12 noon the same day and that no opportunity was given to the plaintiff to place her case. In paragraph 3 of Annexure 2 it is mentioned that the plaintiff counsel was prevent in Court when the defendants application was moved and he had requested for an opportunity to file a rejoinder and to contest the defendants application. The plaintiff prayed that the matter should be heard in presence of the parties. The Court, by a later order of the same date stated that as necessary orders had been passed in presence of the parties, the application should be kept on record. 3. In the present civil revision application the plaintiff has emphatically asserted that in the circumstances as detailed above, the plaintiff could not file her rejoinder and was denied an opportunity to oppose the defendants prayer for abatement of the suit. There is no counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party before me. The short order passed by the Court on Annexure 2' also lends support to the impression that the plaintiff counsel was not heard and she was not given any opportunity to place her case. There is no counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party before me. The short order passed by the Court on Annexure 2' also lends support to the impression that the plaintiff counsel was not heard and she was not given any opportunity to place her case. The earlier order which disposed of the defendant application, is also, as mentioned above, a very short one, without giving any reasons. It is, therefore, manifest that the learned Subordinate Judge acted in exercise of his jurisdiction with material irregularity and the revision application has to be allowed. 4. Mr. Prabhashankar Mishra appearing for some of the opposite parties strenuously contended that in view of the prayer made in the plaint for declaration of the plaintiff's title to the lands described in Schedule I to the plaint, the suit must abate. I do not find my self in a position to accept the contention of Mr. Mishra that the entire suit has necessarily abated, but, in view of the order, which I am proposing to pass, I do not intend to give my concluded opinion on the question. Suffice it to say that the question of abatement is a complicated one and has to be decided after affording proper opportunity to the plaintiff. 5. The third relief in regard to the compensation payable by the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, is of vital importance and the point whether the suit at least in regard to this relief is saved or not is a serious one and needs careful consideration. It has been established by a number or decisions of this Court including a special Bench decision in Ram Krit Singh and others V. State of Bihar and others that a suit may partially abate under the Act. The question whether the plaintiff's claim to compensation payable under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, can be sustained or not is not dependent on the present title of the plaintiff or on her title as on the date of the suit. The claim of title of the plaintiff on the date on which the zamindari disappeared under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, will be relevant in this regard and that was long before the notifications under the Act, for the area concerned were issued. However, as I have said earlier. The claim of title of the plaintiff on the date on which the zamindari disappeared under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, will be relevant in this regard and that was long before the notifications under the Act, for the area concerned were issued. However, as I have said earlier. I do not propose to decide this question finally at this stage and it will be open to the parties to place their respective cases in this regard before the court below. 6. Mr. Prabhashankar, Mishra next contended that the number of defendants in this case is more than 200 and this question, if left to be decided by the court below, may give rise to another civil revision application from the order which would be passed by the court below, involving a lot or delay. I agree with Mr. Mishra, that in view of the suit having been pending for such a long time attempts should be made so that final disposal of the suit should not be delayed. In shat view, I direct that the Court below may frame an issue in regard to the maintainability of the suit in question, based upon the allegations made in the defendants' application before it, but should decide the issue along with other issues in the suit and dispose of the entire suit by one judgment. As the suit is an old one, the court below should take up the hearing as soon as it may be practicable. 7. In the result, the revision application is allowed, the order palled by the court below on 12.3.1977 is set aside and the matter is remanded to it for disposal of the suit expeditious, In accordance with law and the observation made above. There will be no order as to costs. 8. Let the records of the case be sent down immediately. Application allowed.